World should brace for possible war over Iran: France

[cal04]

Source: AFP

The world should brace for a possible war over the Iranian nuclear crisis but seeking a solution through talks should take priority, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday.

"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," he said in an interview broadcast on French television and radio.

"We must negotiate right to the end," with Iran, he said, but underlined that if Tehran possessed an atomic weapon, it would represent "a real danger for the whole world."

Calling the nuclear standoff "the greatest crisis" of present times, the minister said: "We will not accept that the bomb is manufactured," and hinted that military plans were on the way.

"We are trying to put in place plans which are the privilege of chiefs of staff and that is not for tomorrow," he said but stressed that although any attack on Iran was far from taking place, "It is normal for us to plan" for any eventuality.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070916/wl_afp/franceirannuclear_070916193617

[IndianaGreen]

1. Elect a conservative, and you will get war!

Who knows? Perhaps war with Iran will be a good thing! It will definitely drive the West out of the Middle East, and bring the collapse of capitalism. That's the good news! The bad news? Untold innocent lives will be lost!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wuushew]

6. What do you want on your Tombstone?

I predict a short stay

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. Welcome to DU!

I might suggest a quick review of the rules before you post further.

Read:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

Specifically:

Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.

Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.

You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks. However, if a public figure is a member of our community, that person is protected by our rules and you are not permitted to personally attack that person. (You are permitted to offer constructive criticism of their activities as a public figure.)

If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html



Again, welcome. :hi:

[roamer65]

2. Ok, Kouchner...

So...if Iran gets the bomb...what will they do with it? Answer...NOTHING. Israel's possession of nukes ensures that MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) will come into effect just like it did between the USA and the Soviet Union.

[Yupster]

11. The fear is that a small atomic bomb

goes off on the streets of Tel Aviv and no one claims responsibility for it. What if three of them are sent over the border from Lebanon to three Israeli cities? Israel's an awfully small country.

Can Israel blow up Tehran then or would the world say no since no one has been proved guilty.

I think a war would be a disaster for the world, but that is the fear, and the way Hezbullah came up with missiles during their last fighting, I think it is a justifiable fear.

[Truth2Tell]

22. with all due respect, nonsense

If a small device went off in Israel, I don't think for one second that whatever the world had to say about it would prevent whatever response Israel felt they wanted to make.

Nor do I think Iran would be foolish enough to take that risk - not by a long shot. They don't even give their most advanced weapons systems to Hezbullah now as it is - the latest missiles notwithstanding.

Nuking Israel doesn't fit with Iran's strategic goals. It makes no sense. And please don't start in with distorted versions of political speeches by a populist Iranian president with little real power other than a big mouth. The Mullahs are shrewd operators and they know from self-preservation.

[Usrename]

23. By your reasoning, I wonder if someone should bomb Tel Aviv?

Before their atomic bombs start going off in the streets of Tehran. What if they have a chance to send some of their nukes over the border into three Iranian cities? :sarcasm:

Sounds like a tortured hypothetical to me. I'd be a whole lot more worried about Pakistan than Iran.

[Trajan]

25. While I understand your concern ....

I have to wonder why Israel has resisted so long in finding some political accommodation with their neighbors ..... Israel has nuclear weapons, yes, but surely they must have understood that it would be only a matter of time before their neighbors had them as well ...... What was Israel thinking ?

They have acted with bellicosity towards nearly every party in the region ..... they have encroached on lands not within the previously defined, internationally recognized borders, hurling their anathemas with cynical stridency and coarse rhetoric ..... One might ask: what is the end game they seek ?

We might hypothesize: Israel could have already destroyed those 'enemies' that beset them at their borders ..... Yet if they had: There would always be enemies enough to obtain that 'final' revenge that Israel fears now in the guise of a nuclear Persia ...... There would be nothing to stop the eventual introduction of such a doomsday scenario into the Israeli theater, because no political accommodation has ever been sought, and simply does not exist ..... One could also posit what might have happened had Israel chosen to make peace with those neighbors: In that case, there is at least a reduction in the hard rhetoric that exists in the Arab world, and perhaps a lessened desire for revenge, with arabs seeking to trade fairly with a peaceful Israeli state, instead of wishing to snuff it out .... There would have been a decent chance that even WITH access to such weapons, Israel would not have to fear them .....

I will never side with ANY party that tries to hold it's neighbors hostage to a perpetual state of fear through incessant war and terror (and that includes BOTH Arabs and Israelis), but we have to admit: Those who play with fire will eventually get burned .....

As cynical as it may sound: I believe it is inevitable that Israel will be destroyed by a nuclear weapon, and that those neighbors will likewise be poisoned by both the initial attack AND the expected response ..... The cynicism is warranted ....

It will happen ..... count on it ...... Israel has no valid option at this point: Time has run out, and it is too late to seek peace they should have sought a decade ago, when there was still time .... Now there is too much fresh hatred, and the parties are moving fast on the road to mutual ruin ......

The parties needed to find peace long before those 'enemies' could obtain such weapons ..... Now it is too late to stop it ..... Israel can bomb every one of its neighbors, but that would only delay the inevitable, and probably poison their own home for centuries to come ..... Those weapons are now too wide spread to keep from the 'wrong hands' ..... Israel cannot stop it because Israel has not sought to stop the hatred, and has mostly sought to inflame it .....

Bellicose or not ..... powerful or not ..... nuclear or not: that fate is already locked in .....

The only real question is: How far will the damage extend into the rest of the world ? ..... Will China or Russia or the US let loose the tiger ?

Hmmmmm ....

[Yupster]

36. If you are right that Israel will inevitably be destroyed

by nuclear attack, then an Israeli government would have to come to the conclusion that it would have to strike Iran before it went nuclear. There wouldn't be any other choice.

[Trajan]

37. But that is the point .....

of a part of my post: Israel CAN strike Iran ..... they can destroy it; but will it stop the inevitability ? ...... More to the point: Would a less aggressive, more conciliatory stance have proven, in the long run, a MORE effective policy at protecting Israel from danger ?

Iran doesn't have to have nuclear weapons: it doesn't have to even exist !, because someone, somewhere in the world, will be so wild eyed crazy about the perceived stridency of the Israeli state, that a group of persons will eventually come into possession of even one device that can poison Israel for a centuries .... The proliferation of such weapons is now an established fact, and one would have to be the ultimate optimist to believe that Israel will avoid that angry response, for all time to come ....

Israel cannot kill every person who would want to do Israel harm, since it is because the others have been killed in the cause of 'security' that the avenging spirit has ignited on the arab street ... THAT is my point ... and as long as such weapons are in the marketplace (and they are), then Israel's chosen path will only lead to eventual destruction in an ultimate act of extreme revenge ..... Mind you, the whole region would be poisoned in any exchange ..... Who would be safe from the resultant radioactive damage to the environment ? ..... Even Israel would be harmed by striking Iran ... They aren't that far away .... It really doesnt matter who strikes first : The resulting destruction will be widespread, and those who survive will have to struggle immeasurably just to continue .... Arabs will not survive a strike on Israel, and Israel will not survive a strike on a regional muslim state .... not for very long ....

It is revenge that drives the entire region ..... and that revenge has caused men to forget the happy dreams of what could have been brotherhood, and embrace the awful nightmares of their own hatreds ..... We can see how the hatreds have destroyed the childhoods of millions of poor arabs, and turned them into willing pawns of extremists ..... There is a mass neuroses that haunts the region, born of fear, and ready to pounce if given a single inch to do so .... Israel thinks it can forestall every inch ..... I say it cannot ..... Israel cannot stop every possibility, and all it takes is one mistake ......

Nay .... It is unfortunately too late ... It is just a matter of time .....

Striking and killing Iran will not stop this, and may actually precipitate that awful conclusion ....

This is my belief ..... not everyone is so morose about the future possibilities, but frankly, I see no way out now ...... The nuclear tiger is out of it's cage, and there is no one trying to put it back ...... I see 'Game Over' ....

[eridani]

26. Missiles? What horseshit!

Upgraded homemade tin cans is more like it. And people in Northern Israel have been so terrified of them for the last 20 years that in some towns they couldn't even locate the keys to their disused bomb shelters.

[mallard]

30. Re: fear of terrorism vs reducing terror

You wrote:


"Can Israel blow up Tehran then or would the world say no since no one has been proved guilty."

Should there be enough room for doubt leftover for whose benefit a pre-emptive lunge into more Hell is intended?

Will those taking note of the war guardians' body politic, coming as they may amongst us or other also educated (or yet wise) be chastised for questioning allocation of human resources to promote more unnecessary war - even here?

[Mandate My Ass]

3. Their neocons sound just like ours

Be afraid, be very afraid of the Iranian bogeyman. :eyes:

"the greatest crisis of present times" is warmongering neocons who are salivating over hitting Iran. The world would be much better off without these nutcases running the show.

[Eurobabe]

28. I just saw a clip on BBC re: French minister, WTF????

Has the world gone absolutely mad?? :shrug:

[superkia]

5. Did I miss something? I havent seen the proof that Iran is guilty?

All I have seen is the same type of talk like before Iraq and uh...I don't believe that was very honest evidence?

[bhikkhu]

24. That logic will get us nowhere...Proof?

proof is unnecessary when the accused country floats on a sea of oil.

[nealmhughes]

7. FYI: Kouchner got expelled from the Socialist Party for accepting this post by Sakorzy. . .

He used to sing a much different tune when he was the head of Medicins sans Frontieres and in the Chirac governement. . .

[Snarkturian Clone]

8. Thanks, France. nt

[cliss]

10. A tip: When Monsieur Sarkozy made his visit to

the US recently, he met with Bush over the weekend. Afterwards, he got to visit with "some prominent American families" i.e. mega-wealthy folks. NO DOUBT they had a little heart-to-heart with Mr. Charming. Told him exactly what he needs to say, to keep the war drums beating.

Against Iran.

Mr. Sarkozy seems to be a neo con, just like the rest of them. Good luck buddy. Oh by the way, Sarkozy. Did you see what just happened to YOUR bank last month? France's biggest bank Paribas, put out a distress signal last month. It appeared that it was stuck with a portolio of US SUBPRIME MORTGAGES. It had been trying to sell them, but no one WANTED THEM. The bank had to freeze withdrawals on them "because they couldn't put a value on them". Big, big crisis which is just starting to unfold.

And you're still friends with Bush Sarkozy?

[dickbearton]

14. The neocon nazi can be found in most countries...

France, like America, has it's share of these demented
individuals.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. Another point of view . . .

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/jul/1060.html

Gaz de France buys Iranian hydrocarbon blocks tender documents
Tehran, July 5, IRNA - Gaz de France purchased the documents of four hydrocarbon blocks offered to tender for exploration and development, announced the representative of Tehran-based office of the French company on Wednesday.

Mohammad-Reza Odabaei told PIN the giant company was keen to help Iran produce and refine gas of those fields it had been involved in their exploration operations.

He revealed that Gaz de France was thinking of meeting its European clients' need by purchasing Iranian gas.

Odabaei added the French company would participate in those Iranian projects that would lead to exports of gas or production of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Gaz de France is seeking to make investments in Iran LNG project's upstream and downstream sectors by 14 and 7 percent respectively.

To this end, the French giant is holding negotiations with the National Iranian Gas Export Company (NIGEC).

Iran extended the deadline for purchasing the documents and information packages of 17 exploration blocks' tender for 40 days.

The interested companies may purchase the documents by July 21 and offer their technical and financial proposals to the National Iranian Oil Company's (NIOC) Exploration Department by August 1.

The NIOC extended the deadline upon the request of domestic and foreign companies that purchased the documents late and did not have enough time to submit their technical and financial plans.

According to the previous deadline, the companies were to purchase the tender documents by June 10 and offer their technical and financial proposals by June 20.

Of the blocks, five are offshore and 12 onshore, spreading across nine provinces in a 129,000 km area.

Qouchan, Naftshahr, Ilam, Danan, Fassa, Bandar Abbas, Razi, Maraveh, Tappeh, Moghan 1 and 2, Kavir, Alvand, Ferdowsi, Laleh, Taban, and Deir constitute the 17 blocks.

Companies may purchase tender documents at varying prices, but the maximum price is euro 38 thousand.

Iran introduced 17 oil blocks for exploration and development during a February meeting in the Austrian capital Vienna.

US pressures to persuade foreign oil companies not to invest in Iran have been ineffective.

They have a lot to lose by War with Iran. Sometimes we Americans get so wrapped up in our own issues - that we don't realize that a foreign entity could be acting in their OWN best interests. I don't think this is a 'War Cry' . . .I think it's a call for cooler heads to prevail. We already f*cked France over in terms of it's oil interests in Iraq (look up Oil for Food). I think they are trying to head off more stupidity from President Numnuts. This time, they are saying it out loud - and maybe instead of 'warning Iran' - they are warning the Europen Union to stop resting on its' laurels and take a hard line approach AGAINST America.

I just don't think it's always about 'us'.


Now read the full article I've linked re Lebanon/Syria. Here's an interesting excerpt:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=85275

Kouchner said the main difference between the governments of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and former French President Jacques Chirac is that Sarkozy represents a new generation, while Chirac represented the old generation and had a different relationship with the US. " speaks clearly and honestly, we do not follow the US lead, our relations with the US are different than Chirac's. We do not agree with all the US says," Kouchner added.

"My friends in March 14 say they are not completely happy, but this dialogue has to continue," he said, adding that dialogue is pivotal. "This is not a loss for anyone nor is it a victory for anyone," Kouchner added before heading for his meeting with Siniora Thursday evening.

Let's remember, President Sarkozy said that Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons (why? He needs his oil) . . .but as a Democrat in America? It felt really good to hear a world leader say, "There must be a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq". Why does that second piece keep getting lost in the dialogue?

I'm typing this as someone whose boyfriend is business man in Lyon France with businesses scattered throughout the world. I know these people. They are on OUR side . . . Dems/Progressives in America.

As far as I'm concerned? Sarkozy/Kouchner are displaying the testicular fortitude that our Democratic Congress is not displaying. They threw The Bush Regime a bone . . . to see if he would answer their call to draw down the STOOPIDITY in Iraq. An interventionist war against Iran (My opinion only) is not the 'focus'. . . the focus is to have us get the hell out of Iraq.

To their point - it's going to be hard for any Western country to step in and try to work towards reasonable negotiations when we have a presence in Iraq. We need to help them to help us - but President Numnuts is to f*cking arrogant to admit that there's another President in the world who is SMARTER than he is.

[reggie the dog]

13. I for one

I for one think that he is just warning the French people that the US is planning an attack. A war with Iran would likely not be popular here. The war in Iraq was seen as a disaster based on lies. It is true that Sarkozy is different than Chirac but the government in power is still made up by a THE SAME political party that was always against the Iraq war. To save their own political careers I believe many of the UMP party members WILL NOT support a war in Iran out of fear of political suicide. Next may will be the 40th anniversery of may 1968, arguably the largest social movement in the history of France. Nicolas Sarkozy de Nagy Bosca hates this strike, if war breaks out 2008 will give TWO generations a great reason to strike and shut down the country. For these reasons I believe that Kouchner is simply telling us French folks and everyone else to brace themselves for 100 dollar a barrel oil. France and Germany said before Iraq that seeking a solution through talks should take priority only to see the US go to war. Perhaps he is not as threatening as you interpret it. I will keep you folks posted about further developments here in France.

[JustAnotherGen]

15. reggie

Thanks - that's my point. I don't know where you are in France . . . but I greatly appreciate your viewpoint. That was NO war cry from Kouchner. I don't believe it. You - fortunately - are in a country where both cooler and the most intelligent heads prevail.

[reggie the dog]

16. I hope we are correct

I hope we are correct in our assessments. I am in the south of France, in the Var but originally from Chicago. Many people here vote UMP and FN and all the nationalist parties. The extreme right (which represents easily 20 to 25 percent of the vote here in the Var (I know Sarkozy stole some of their VOTES, but they are still ultra rights at heart.) The ultra right parties ara against further using their tax euros in fights outside of France. The UMP supporters (40 to 50) percent of the Var will likely oppose a war in Iran because the price of oil would skyrocket and the French economy would slow even further. The Socialists as well as the far left supporters (people like me that vote for Communist representatives) will oppose the war in an anti colonialism stance. The protests would be left center right against an immoral war. (sounds a bit like mai 68 if we add in some social disharmony as well.) I do not think the rest of the UMP would think of risking this happening even if the president here is possibly willing to do such a war.

[Laughing Mirror]

31. Well Tehran ain't so happy with what Kouchner is saying

They may not be hearing the same music coming out of Kouchner's mouth as you. Tehran condemned it, called it a provocation. "Contrary to the historic & cultural tradition of France and its civilization," they said.

Germany's foreign minister says it would be completely false to speak of threats of war, that the only option possible is negotiation, diplomacy, and that any other option is not an object of discussion. In other words, attacking Iran is not on the table. Only diplomacy with Iran is.

Only diplomacy. That's Germany's policy and European policy. France's Foreign Minister, its chief diplomat, talking war doesn't sound diplomatic, not only to Iran, but to Europe. So why is he really saying it? To scare France ... or Iran?

[Zhade]

17. WHAT nuclear crisis? The IAEA itself said Iran DOES NOT HAVE NUKES.

Just how fucking stupid do they think we are to think Iran does?

[micraphone]

18. Quite right Zhade

What's more they also said Iran is YEARS away from producing them.

More conservative fruitcakes....

[USA_1]

19. APPEASEMENT DID NOT STOP HITLER ...

... and it will not stop Bush.

It is time to stop Bush Nazism before we get more war and more war profits for the wealthy.

[Gloria]

20. A few weeks ago I posted an article about Sarkozy that really

did show that he is Bush's new poodle......

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frankieT]

27. Kouchner is one of our best likudniks

here in France.
I'm too glad this phony a**h**e enlisted in Sarkozy government. At least people will discover that he never was interested by PEOPLE. Everything is about promoting his narcissist person and his pro-democracy blood-thirsty masters.

[Laughing Mirror]

33. The photogenic ex "French doctor" became a media darling, let's not forget

Thanks to miserable wars and human suffering. So what's another war to him? He's got a nice villa in Corse, I think. Bares his war-party fangs, masquerades as a diplomat.

[frankieT]

38. I want to ask him

how such a humane, educated and passionate person like him sleeps at night after supporting Bush bloody aggression against Iraq ? Same story with Iran.
I always wondered how is it possible to support war using positive arguments (freedom, life, democracy) without actually risking anything. This is an incredible form of cowardice.

[DuaneBidoux]

29. We'll see how popular Sarkozy stays with French people if he talks like this much.

[Laughing Mirror]

32. A poll I heard last week had him down about 5 points, but still a hair over 60%

It takes a while for the generalized fever to go down, but it is going down degree by degree, and will continue to do so.

[DuaneBidoux]

34. He is doing some things that need to be done (although he'd not get much approval here.)

There really have been a number of wickedly ridiculous laws build up over the last 50 years or so and some changes need to be made. I lived there for some time (just outside of Paris) and couldn't believe one day when I found out that companies are not allowed to decide when they want to put their merchandise on sale. There are a few very specific days a year where a store can have a sale and reductions that are permitted are strictly enforced.

In a newspaper one is not permitted to talk negatively about a French company.

Lots of crazy laws like this that for some reason the far left has fought to have repealed.

They also really do have to do something about immigration. The entry of foreigners makes our situation look like nothing and with all the heavy social programs (which are fine) the system is being overloaded. Not doing something at this point will ultimately lead to some true right wing crazy gaining a foothold. My father-in-law (lives in Toulouse) has been a socialist all of his life and has been extremely lenient on immigration, but even he is worried about the situation now and concures that to not do something will lead to a resurgence of the right.

[krabigirl]

35. Ugh, but it's fine for France (and us, and others) to have nukes, right?